What does the Bengal's fight song have in common with the guy that killed Bin Laden??

[GMDino]

(07-07-2022, 01:56 PM)Sled21 Wrote: You think these guys are a-holes because MSNBC tells you to think they are a-holes. Why don't you listen to the broadcast, which also includes an interview with the investigative journalist who found the evidence they were used as cannon fodder  and thrown to the wolves for political reasons by the State Department? Are you afraid you might change your mind? Naw, you probably will watch the video then pretend it doesn't exist.

I don't watch any of the cable "news" networks.

You said they were "cleared".  I said they were pardoned.

There was some stuff about two photos that weren't entered as evidence...but they were never "cleared".

I'm sure the totally unbiased youtube show is completely fair and tells both sides of the story equally.

I am also 100% sure you have zero bias toward them being "used as cannon fodder".  100% sure.  

[BigPapaKain]

When did Hilary have the authority to sentence people to jail? I mean she's a Clinton; wouldn't she just have them assassinated and their kids sold in a pizza parlor?

[Sled21]

(07-07-2022, 03:08 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: When did Hilary have the authority to sentence people to jail? I mean she's a Clinton; wouldn't she just have them assassinated and their kids sold in a pizza parlor?

Keep that head in the sand.... the State Dept. is who was responsible for them being charged. They were working under a State Department contract to escort convoys.

[Sled21]

(07-07-2022, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't watch any of the cable "news" networks.

You said they were "cleared".  I said they were pardoned.

There was some stuff about two photos that weren't entered as evidence...but they were never "cleared".

I'm sure the totally unbiased youtube show is completely fair and tells both sides of the story equally.

I am also 100% sure you have zero bias toward them being "used as cannon fodder".  100% sure.  

Anybody with the IQ of a snail could conclude they were innocent when they see the hidden evidence. And if you don't believe what they tell you on the "unbiased youtube show" all the stuff is linked on that sight so you can read it yourself.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2022, 03:19 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Anybody with the IQ of a snail could conclude they were innocent when they see the hidden evidence. And if you don't believe what they tell you on the "unbiased youtube show" all the stuff is linked on that sight so you can read it yourself.

Without me giving the ahole whisperer a free hit on his page can you share a link of all the "hidden evidence" that came out?  

The best I've found was some of them had their sentences reduced because an appeals panel felt they were excessive.

One was retried, because the same appeals court felt he should have been tried separately, and was found guilty again.

Then Trump pardoned them.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-07-2022, 03:17 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Keep that head in the sand.... the State Dept. is who was responsible for them being charged. They were working under a State Department contract to escort convoys.

So she didn't have the authority to sentence them. Got it. I figured as much which is why I wondered why she was even brought up. 

[GMDino]

(07-07-2022, 04:24 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So she didn't have the authority to sentence them. Got it. I figured as much which is why I wondered why she was even brought up. 

Something tells me, and I'm just spit balling here, that there are more politics involved in trying to defend these guys than in their prosecution.

[Belsnickel]

(07-07-2022, 03:17 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Keep that head in the sand.... the State Dept. is who was responsible for them being charged. They were working under a State Department contract to escort convoys.

Really? The State Department has the authority to bring criminal charges? That's a new one.

Also, the best part is that the incident occurred during the Bush administration and was in the hands of the FBI in 2007 as they took it over from the State Department at that time and charges were filed by DOJ in December 2008. This literally has nothing to do with Clinton.

[Sled21]

(07-07-2022, 03:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Without me giving the ahole whisperer a free hit on his page can you share a link of all the "hidden evidence" that came out?  

The best I've found was some of them had their sentences reduced because an appeals panel felt they were excessive.

One was retried, because the same appeals court felt he should have been tried separately, and was found guilty again.

Then Trump pardoned them.

Well if you opened your mind an just watched the segment with the independent investigative reporter you might learn something like

1)The Iraqis said there were no armed insurgents shooting at the convoy, yet somehow the vehicles were disabled by gunfire.
2)Their is footage from a helicopter, and testimony from the pilots, that supposed "Iraqi police officers" were filmed ditching their uniforms and running off after the firefight. It was well known the Iraqi police were infiltrated with insurgents.
3) There was drone footage of the entire incident. When the prosecution turned it over to the defense, the convoy was entering the traffic circle, then it goes black, then the footage resumes with tow vehicles towing the disabled trucks away. State Dept. claimed the footage was erased as part of normal procedure, yet the beginning and end were there and the firefight between erased.
4)An Army Captain with Investigations arrived shortly after the battle and photographed 7.62X39 (AK rounds) shell casings exactly where the contractors said they were taking fire from
5)Autopsies on the victims showed the wounds were made by AK rounds, the contractors were shooting M-4's in .556
6) State Dept. took their statements under protection of Garrity, then used them against them in criminal proceedings.
7)The FBI did not arrive to process the scene for 3 weeks, during which the traffic circle was not secured.
8) The Iraqi investigator went on tv with public service announcements drumming up victims who could be compensated. The defense was not allowed to question any of them. 
9) The prosecution relied almost solely on the work of the lead Iraqi investigator, who was later determined to be working with 2 terror networks and disavowed.
10) The case was thrown out the first time they were indicted due to prosecutorial misconduct. 

This are just the highlights I remember. But keep on thinking our Govt. were never sacrifice anyone for political gain. Just don't take the red pill...

[Sled21]

(07-07-2022, 07:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Really? The State Department has the authority to bring criminal charges? That's a new one.

Also, the best part is that the incident occurred during the Bush administration and was in the hands of the FBI in 2007 as they took it over from the State Department at that time and charges were filed by DOJ in December 2008. This literally has nothing to do with Clinton.

Yeah, keep believing they don't. All they have to do is pick up a phone.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-07-2022, 03:17 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Keep that head in the sand.... the State Dept. is who was responsible for them being charged. They were working under a State Department contract to escort convoys.

Honest question.  What are your thoughts on the state department contracting out escort convoys to a private entity?  I've always found it peculiar at best.  

[BigPapaKain]

(07-08-2022, 02:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Yeah, keep believing they don't. All they have to do is pick up a phone.

Which explains how Trump was able to lock up Hilary. No wait...

[Belsnickel]

(07-08-2022, 02:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Yeah, keep believing they don't. All they have to do is pick up a phone.

Did you miss the part about all this being before Clinton was Secretary of State because it occurred during the Bush administration?

[Sled21]

(07-08-2022, 02:37 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Honest question.  What are your thoughts on the state department contracting out escort convoys to a private entity?  I've always found it peculiar at best.  

It's a much cheaper option than having regular military personnel doing it and leaves the military to do military stuff. It's probably not the best optics, but it is cost effective. 

[Sled21]

(07-09-2022, 07:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did you miss the part about all this being before Clinton was Secretary of State because it occurred during the Bush administration?

Did you watch any of the video?

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2022, 01:30 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Did you watch any of the video?

I don't need to watch a video about it. I know what the timeline of events were.

[Sled21]

(07-12-2022, 01:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't need to watch a video about it. I know what the timeline of events were.

OK then. How many years did their trials go on? Basically what you are saying is you don't need to watch the video because your mind is made up, and any information you might get that distorts the truth you were told cannot be tolerated.  And FWIW, when I heard the news stories at the time, I thought these guys were just killers too. Only difference I opened my mind to the evidence when I heard it. But you do you....

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2022, 04:05 PM)Sled21 Wrote: OK then. How many years did their trials go on? Basically what you are saying is you don't need to watch the video because your mind is made up, and any information you might get that distorts the truth you were told cannot be tolerated.  And FWIW, when I heard the news stories at the time, I thought these guys were just killers too. Only difference I opened my mind to the evidence when I heard it. But you do you....

I know their trials went on for years, but it wasn't the State Department that prosecuted them. It was the Department of Justice under both the Bush and Obama administrations. The State Department played a minor role and none at all under the Obama administration. I haven't said boo about my opinion of their guilt or innocence, I am merely pointing out that your unhealthy obsession with Hillary Clinton is leading you astray on this one as the State Department was not the investigating nor prosecuting agency during Clinton's tenure.

[Sled21]

(07-12-2022, 04:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know their trials went on for years, but it wasn't the State Department that prosecuted them. It was the Department of Justice under both the Bush and Obama administrations. The State Department played a minor role and none at all under the Obama administration. I haven't said boo about my opinion of their guilt or innocence, I am merely pointing out that your unhealthy obsession with Hillary Clinton is leading you astray on this one as the State Department was not the investigating nor prosecuting agency during Clinton's tenure.

Do you know about the emails found on Hillary Clinton's server sent to Harold Cohen saying "What do we have to do to bring this case back up?" after the Federal Judge had tossed it out for Prosecutorial Misconduct by severly violating their rights? 
https://static.bashcrash.io/Raven%2023%20cables-Clinton%20email.pdf